4.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1968 respectively, and live in Strumica.
5.  By a court decision of 1985, confirmed by the Appeal and Supreme Courts’ decisions of 1986 and 1987 respectively, the applicants were established as successors in title to a property which had belonged to their late grandfather. On 31 March 1992 the then Radoviš Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”), in non-contentious proceedings, accepted the applicants’ request for physical division of the property submitted in 1987 and determined the plots of land to be transferred into their actual possession (во сопственост и владение). On 14 September 1993 the then Štip District Court ruled partly in favour of both parties and overturned the lower court’s decision only in respect of part of the property for which it ordered a public sale.
6.  On 27 December 1993 the first-instance court granted the applicants’ request for enforcement of the above decisions submitted on 20 December 1993. Under the order, the debtor was obliged to transfer into the applicants’ actual possession the plots of land as specified in those decisions. It further ordered a public sale of the remaining property.
7.  On 26 October 1994 the court inspected the site together with a land expert. Enforcement was adjourned since the debtor had applied for a court summons. The court re-scheduled enforcement for 3 November 1994. It also ordered the applicants to make a down-payment in respect of the costs of enforcement (Macedonian denars 2,500 (MKD)). The debtor was ordered to reimburse those costs within three days under threat of forcible enforcement.
8.  A payment slip of the same date confirmed that the court paid that amount to the court officers involved in the above on-site inspection.
9.  On 2 November 1994 the debtor objected to the order. He argued that the court decision of 31 March 1992 was unenforceable since he had not been served with the appeal court’s decision given in those proceedings. On 7 November 1994 the applicants lodged their submissions in reply.
10.  On 1 November 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the debtor’s objection.
11.  On 8 November 2000 that court ordered the applicants to pay MKD 4,500 for the costs of enforcement. These included MKD 2,500 for an on-site inspection and MKD 2,000 for interest. It was also indicated that in case of non-compliance enforcement might be stayed.
12.  A receipt slip of 17 November 2000 confirmed the payment of the above amount.
13.  After the Ministry of Justice had requested information about progress in the applicants’ case, on 20 July 2001 the first-instance court issued a letter in which it stated that enforcement would resume with an expert identification of the plots of land.
14.  On 29 August 2001 the Štip Court of Appeal allowed the debtor’s appeal against the first-instance court’s decision of 1 November 2000 and remitted the case for re-examination.
15.  On 9 July 2003 the first-instance court dismissed the debtor’s objection, finding that he had been served with the appeal court’s decision in October or November 1993. It also rejected the applicants’ request for public sale of part of the property as that same issue should have been decided in the non-contentious proceedings initiated in 1987. On 26 January 2004 the Štip Court of Appeal confirmed that decision.
16.  On 16 April 2004 the court inspected the site. After an expert had identified the plots of land, the court transferred them into the applicants’ possession and ordered the debtor to refrain from disturbing the latter. It also ordered the debtor to pay MKD 9,750 in respect of the costs of enforcement. The applicants’ lawyer requested reimbursement of the legal fees which she would specify subsequently.
17.  On 4 September 2006 the court handed (на рака) to the applicants the amount described above. As stated in the minutes, the applicants confirmed receipt of the money and requested continuation of enforcement in respect of the remaining costs.
18.  Between October 2000 and June 2006, the applicants complained several times to the President of the first-instance court, the Ministry of Justice, the Republican Judicial Council and the Ombudsman with a view to speeding up the proceedings.